Theories of Caste System in India

Article shared by

Many western and non-Indian scholars have described the origin of castes in their own ways. Whereas Herbert Risley has attributed the racial differences to have been the cause, Nesfield and Ibbeston explained its origin through occupational factors. Abbe Dubois stressed on the role of the Brahmins in the creation of caste system. J.H. Hutton referred to the belief in ‘Mana’ as the origin of caste. In addition, various theories of the origin of caste system have been formulated.

Some important theories are given below:

(a) Traditional Theory:

This theory owes its origin to the ancient literature. It believes that caste has a divine origin. There are some references in the Vedic literature, wherein it is said that castes were created by Brahma, the supreme creator. He created different castes for the harmonious performance of various social functions for the maintenance of society. According to the ‘Purushasukta’ hymn of the Rig Veda, the Brahman is supposed to have been born from the mouth of the Supreme Being, the Kshatriya from the arms, the Vaishya from the thighs and the Sudra from the feet of the creator.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The emergence of four castes from different parts of Brahma’s body is only a symbolic description and is indicative of the work performed by each of them. It considers caste as a natural determined organisation of social functions and explains one’s birth in a particular caste in terms of the doctrine of Karma as well as dharma. Since the Brahmin has come out of the mouth, the seat of speech, his duty is to serve society as a teacher and also to preserve his cultural heritage.

Arms symbolize strength. Hence, the duty of the Kshatriya is to defend the society from internal and external aggressions and rule the land. The duty of the Vaishya who comes out of the thighs is to provide food for the members of society and look after its economic well being. The feet serve the body.

So, the prime duty of the Sudra who is born out of the feet of ‘Brahma’ is to serve the members of other castes without grumbling or grudging. Thus the purpose of creation of each caste is to perform specific functions according to the creation of God Brahma and as such castes cannot be changed due to human will.

The supporters of the traditional theory of caste cite instances from the Manusmriti, Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata in support of their argument of four-fold division of society. As regards the origin of a number of castes, it is believed that those have been formed as a result of the hypergamous or hypogamous marriages between the four original ‘varnas’.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The ‘Karma’ and ‘Dharma’ doctrines also explain the origin of caste system. Whereas the Karma doctrine holds the view that a man is born in a particular caste because of the result of his action in the previous incarnation, the doctrine of Dharma explains that a man who accepts the caste system and the principles of the caste to which he belongs, is living according to Dharma. It is believed that the person living according to his Dharma is rewarded. On the contrary, the violation of one’s own dharma yields punishment. Confirmation to one’s own dharma also remits on one’s birth in the rich high caste and violation gives a birth in a lower and poor caste.

Attempts have been made to explain the caste on the basis of qualities or ‘gunas’ which are interpreted in terms of two sets ‘gotrika’ and ‘namika’. The ‘gotrika’ quality is concerned with heredity. The individual, on the basis of his birth, inherits from his lineage, which is commonly found among all other consanguineous kins. The ‘namika’ qualities are the individual’s own specific qualities. Thus the ‘gortika’ relates an individual with a particular group and determine his ascriptive status. This ascriptive status accords him membership in a particular ‘jati’ or caste.

This traditional theory has been criticized on three counts.

First it attributes the origin of human beings of four varnas to a divine being and thus considers it as a supernatural phenomenon which is biologically wrong.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Secondly, it treats four ‘varnas’ as four castes, which implies that caste system and varna system are all the same. This conception is wrong. In this regard M.N. Srinivas holds that the idea of caste as the four fold division of society represents a gross oversimplification of facts. The real unit of caste system is ‘Jati’ denoting an endogamous community with more or less defined ritual status and occupations traditionally linked to it.

Thirdly, the tracing of the origin of caste to miscegenating or ‘Varna Shankar’ is also misleading. It is possible that some castes have been formed as miscegenation, but it is not correct to say that all the castes have been formed due to miscegenation.

Theory of Cultural Integration:

This theory has been propounded by Sarat Chandra Roy. Roy is of the opinion that caste is an outcome of the interaction between the Indo-Aryans’ varna system on the one hand and the tribal system of the Dravidian on the other. Thus S.C. Roy holds that caste system evolved as a result of integration and assimilation of different cultures like the Aryan’s. ‘Karma’ based varna system and the tribal system of the Dravidian occupational division of society etc. As the number of ethnic groups increased the caste system began to grow more complex.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(b) Occupational Theory:

Nesfield regarded Caste system as the natural product of the occupational division of Hindu Society. In his own words “Function and function alone is responsible for the origin of caste system”. He holds the view that in the beginning when there was no rigidity, each individual was free to have occupation of his choice. But gradually with the rigidity in the system, occupational changes came to a halt.

Castes were identified on the basis of fixed occupation. Persons in noble occupations, such as educating the people, fighting in the battle field, trade etc. was considered as members of superior castes. The others were treated as persons belonging to inferior castes, such as the Sudras. In support of his theory, Nesfield cited the example that the occupation of artisans working in metals is ranked higher than basket makers or some other primitive occupations which do not involve the use of metals.

However, this theory is not free from criticism. The line of attack is that occupation is not the sole basis of causing caste differences. Wide variations are also marked in respect of the position of agricultural castes in different parts of India. Whereas in the South these agricultural castes are rated lower, they are regarded as relatively higher and respectable in North India.

(c) Political Theory:

Some thinkers are of the opinion that not race but political convenience and manipulation by those wanting to retain authority resulted in the origin of caste system. The Brahmins were solely responsible for creating and maintaining this system so as to retain authority. In the words of Dr. Ghurye “Caste is the Brahminic child of Indo-Aryans culture cradled in the land of Ganges and hence transferred to other parts of India by Brahminic prospectors.”

Abbe Dubois thought that the caste system is an ingenious device made by the Brahmins for Brahmins. Brahmins imposed restriction on food and social intercourse to preserve their purity necessary for the sacerdotal functions. They also accorded high status to themselves and declared all others inferior to them. The Brahmins also held that “Whatever a Brahimin says is a social norm and the entire property of the society belongs to the Brahmins.” The salvation of individuals or society lied in the performance of religious rites by the Brahmin only. The Brahmins even added the concept of spiritual merit of the king, through the priest or purohit in order to get the support of the ruler of the land.

However Hutton has made scratching attack on the Brahmanical theory of the origin of caste on two counts. First, it is not possible to accept this theory unless it is confirmed that Brahmins must have got the political power to implement such a scheme. Secondly, such a deep rooted social institution like caste could hardly be imposed by an administrative measure. Of course both the arguments of Hutton appear to be illogical because Kshatriyas have ruled over the land through the entire period of history and furthermore imposition of superiority over others by the Brahmins may not be possible through administrative measure. The best explanation may be the appeal to the religious sentiments of the people.

(d) The theory of Mana:

J.H. Hutton has propounded the theory of ‘Mana’ in the formation of castes. This has been supported by Roy, Rice and Swart also. ‘Mana’ is a supernatural power which possesses the capacity to do good or bad to people. The tribals believe that ‘Mana’ is attached to objects, places and even to individuals. The tribal also believed that this myterious impersonal power can be transmitted through contact and social intercourse.

Tribal belief in ‘Mana” is always accompanied by the belief in value of taboo. Each ‘Mana’ has its corresponding taboos. Taboos are required to provide protective measures. Taboos are imposed on commensality, inter-marriage, interaction, etc. to save the members of one tribe from the ‘Mana’ of the other tribe. Tribals consider the food of the other tribe perilous due to the belief that food and contacts may be infected with the dangerous soul matter of others. Hutton’s argument is that caste elements were existent in India before the Aryan invasion.

In his study of certain tribes east of the Naga Hills, Hutton found that in this area each village was an independent political unit and occupations were distributed by villages. Some villagers were adepts in pot-making. People belonging to other villages were weaving cloth. Some villages were having blacksmiths. The villages had interdependence on each other through barter system of their products. Hutton suggested that this has probably been the state of affairs throughout pre-Aryan India.

The exogamous clans started migrating from one village to another due to political, social and natural disturbances. The villages also welcomed such migration because it was beneficial for them in respect of the non-availability of particular trade. The migrants were not allowed to practise the profession of the village, where they got settled, because the professions were tabooed.

The tribals believed that if the strangers were allowed to practise the ancestral occupation of the villagers, that would displease the ancestors. Since the ancestors were believed to have possessed the ‘Mana’, they would destroy the crops and fruits of the earth. Hutton has also cited the ‘Mana’ principles in other religions like Buddhism, where it appears as ‘iddhi’. In Islam such beliefs are known as ‘Kudrat’. In Hinduism it is analogous to ‘Shakti.’

Thus, Hutton has come to the conclusion that the fear of ‘Mana’ led to the restrictions on occupation, food, drink and marriage, because it is believed that ‘Mana’ would be transmitted through such contracts. As a result caste system originated.

Criticism:

The theory of ‘Mana’ has been criticized on two counts. First, India is not the only country where the belief in ‘Mana’ existed. But in no other parts of the world it created the caste system. Hence the belief that the theory that ‘Mana’ produced caste system appears to be misleading. Secondly, there is no evidence supporting the existence of caste system in India alone.

Racial Theory of Caste:

Herbert Risley is the most ardent exponent of racial theory of the origin of caste system. Other supporters of this theory are the scholars like Ghurye, Mazumdar, Westermarck and others. According to this theory caste system came into existence due to clash of cultures and the contact of races. The Aryans came to India as conquerers, because of their better complexion, physical appearance and built up of the body, in comparison with the non-Aryans, the Aryans placed themselves as a superior race over the non-Aryans.

Thus the Aryans considered the natives as inferior to them and maintained their own ideas and ceremonial purity. The Aryans got married to the non-Aryan women, but refused to give their own daughters in marriage to the non-Aryans. The offspring’s born out of such marriages were called the Chandal. The Chandals had the lowest position in society. Thus the irregular unions between races and racial superiority were held responsible for the origin of caste system in India. Risley has mentioned six processes of development of caste system.

(i) Change in traditional occupation:

When a caste or a sub-caste changes its traditional occupation and adopts a different one, it ultimately develops into a distinct caste.

(ii) Migration:

In the past the transport and communication system was not developed. Therefore whenever a section of caste migrated from one region to the other, it faced difficulties in maintaining contacts with the earlier place. In course of time it was delinked with the parental caste.

(iii) Customary changes:

From the earliest times, the formation of new castes was based on the rejection of old custom and usages and acceptance of the new practices and habits.

(iv) Preservation of old practices:

Some caste groups are interested in maintaining their old traditions and on those bases they separate themselves from the rest of society who follow relatively new customs and traditions. The caste groups preserving old patterns may take up new names. This results in the formation of new castes.

(v) Getting into the folds of Hinduism:

Certain tribes or the section of the tribes enter into the rank on Hinduism by

(a) Changing their lineage,

(b) By accepting the tenets of any school of Hindu religion,

(c) By joining Hindu religion and by establishing relations with the Hindus without changing its name.

Thus the tribes transform themselves into castes. The examples of the Rajbanshies of Bengal and Muria Gonds of Madhya Pradesh may be taken in this regard.

(vi) Role of religious enthusiasts:

Separate sects are created by the religious enthusiasts. They preach their doctrines and attract people towards them. Gradually their followers develop into a new group. Kabir may be taken as an example in this regard.

Ghurye’s view:

G.S. Ghurye also traces the Origin of caste system to race. He has associated caste system with Brahmanic system. The system originated in the Gangetic plains due to the conquest of the Aryans. According to him the conquered race began to be considered as Sudra. The Sudras were excluded from all religious and social activities of the Aryans. The Aryans did not “allow them to participate in Indo-Aryans social activities.

According to him “the Brahminic variety of this Indo-Aryan civilization was developed in the Gangetic plain. I, therefore conclude that some of the important aspects of caste originate in this region.” He writes, “Multiplicity of groups and the thoroughness of the system was due to the habit of the Hindu mind to create categories to carry things to their logical end, a characteristic manifest in the literature, philosophy and religious creeds.”

Ghurye believed that it is this multiplicity which has resulted in the formation of castes and sub-castes. In this regard he adds, “the various factors that characterise caste society were the result in the first instance of the attempts on the part of the upholders of Brahminic civilisation to exclude the aboriginals and the Surdras from religious and social communication with themselves.

Risley’s View:

Herbert Risley held the view that the caste system originated due to the emigration of Indo-Aryans from Persia. In Persia the Indo-Aryans were divided into four classes and the migrants in India wanted to retain the same class structure. At the same time they wanted to maintain distance from the non-Aryans because they considered the non-Aryans inferior to them, both in cultural and racial features.

They practised hypergamy with the non-Aryans, but did not allow hypogamy with them. Even then more stray cases occurred. Thus three distinct classes emerged in society:

(a) Endogamous marriage of the Aryans

(b) Hypergamy and

(c) Stray cases of exogamy.

Such marriage practices resulted in the origin of castes.

Majumdar’s View:

According to D.N. Majumdar the origin of caste system may be traced to the ‘varna’ or complexion. Initially there were only three classes on the basis of complexion. These three classes were formed out of the inter-mixing of Pro- Dravidian and Proto-Mediterranean races. The intermixing of different races arose out of the acquisition of Dravidian wives and the desire for a settled life, D.N. Majumdar writes in his book, “Races and Culture in India.”

The actual mention of caste system in Avestan literature as comprising of the priest, the charioteer, agriculturists and the artisans and an identical division of society in ancient India may point to common origin of the caste system, specially, because the Indo- Aryans are only branch of the same race which moved towards Persia.” In course of time the higher castes took to certain professions and the lower caste abstained from practising those professions of the higher castes. Restrictions were imposed on marriage. Gradually the superior castes maintained social distance from inferior castes. The inferior castes got themselves organised to stake their claim in the caste hierarchy. The formation of hierarchy became the basis of origin of caste system.

Critcism:

Racial theory cannot be accepted as the exclusive theory of the origin of caste system in India. Caste system should not be confined to India. It should be found in all such societies which have experienced the conquest by other racial groups.

Secondly, it is quite natural that whenever two or more distinct races come into contact, some sort of segregation results. But this may not always lead to untouchability.

Thirdly, the practice of hypergamy may be a reasonable factor contributing to the formation of the caste system. But this is not the sole reason. If we relate the origin of caste exclusively to the race, it will neglect many other possible factors.

(e) Evolutionary theory:

Denzil Ibbeston has presented this evolutionary theory of origin of caste system. The theory implies that the caste system did not come into existence all of a sudden. It is the consequence of a long process of social evolution. The caste system emerged slowly and gradually. The factors which contributed to it, included desire for purity of blood, devotion to a particular profession, theory of Karma, conquests of one army by the other, geographical location and isolation.

However, this theory has failed to provide a correct explanation for the origin of the caste system, for, though the same condition existed in other parts of the World, caste system did not evolve there. Thus a multiplicity of theories have been advanced from time to time, explaining the origin of caste system. But no theory has been completely convincing. This is due to the complexity and fluidity in the caste system. Hence, it is safe to conclude that the Indian caste system cannot be explained through mono causal theories. It is the natural result of the interaction of geographical, social, political, economic and religious factors.

Views of the Scientists:

Led by Dr. Michael Bamshad of Utah University, scientists have discovered a pattern of genetic differences that underpins the caste system in India. On the basis of their study of the genetic material from 250 people from 12 castes in Andhra Pradesh, it is revealed that each caste has developed a distinctive genetic profile because of little inter-caste marriage and the variation in the social pecking order are also mirrored in the DNA.

The conclusions of their study are particularly true for men; women’s genes suggest that have some social mobility. The Hindu society is stratified into around 2000 castes and sub-castes that dictate a person’s access to education, occupation and status. To study how deeply these divisions had affected them, the scientists examined their mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from mothers, and Y chromosomes, inherited only from fathers.

The findings of these scientists were:

(i) Man’s DNA is highly specific to his caste, but with women this phenomenon was less pounced. With them, DNA typical of one caste was sometimes found in other adjoining castes.

(ii) Women occasionally marry men from higher castes, producing children who inherit the husband’s caste,